Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

Palmpilot said:
That doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there are oil companies that support the spreading of misinformation on the subject. Are you saying that it's safe to assume that only one side is capable of being affected by financial interests? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Here's a suggestion, and you might want to pass this on to your cohorts. If big oil bothers you guys so much, why not boycott them? Just flat out quit using their products! Think about all the damage you guys could do to those companies. If all the global warming zealots got together and never used another product that was petroleum based, you guys would rule the world. Just think about all the power and control you guys would have if you ran the oil companies out of business. It would be awesome! :thumbsup:
 
azblackbird said:
Here's a suggestion, and you might want to pass this on to your cohorts. If big oil bothers you guys so much, why not boycott them? Just flat out quit using their products! Think about all the damage you guys could do to those companies. If all the global warming zealots got together and never used another product that was petroleum based, you guys would rule the world. Just think about all the power and control you guys would have if you ran the oil companies out of business. It would be awesome! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who brought up the issue of money affecting people's behavior. I'm just saying that assuming that only one side is capable of being influenced by it doesn't make any sense.
 
2050
It just occurred to me. In 2050 I'll be 101 years old.
If I make it to that august age, I doubt if I'll let a little weather stop me from flying.
 
azblackbird said:
Here's a suggestion, and you might want to pass this on to your cohorts. If big oil bothers you guys so much, why not boycott them? Just flat out quit using their products! Think about all the damage you guys could do to those companies. If all the global warming zealots got together and never used another product that was petroleum based, you guys would rule the world. Just think about all the power and control you guys would have if you ran the oil companies out of business. It would be awesome! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I switched to Chevron (in spite of the fact that their gas is more expensive), because they don't deny the science.

https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I switched to Chevron (in spite of the fact that their gas is more expensive), because they don't deny the science
Click to expand...
Ahhhh... now I get it. Big oil is okay as long as they can pacify you with the right message, and can show you how they accept the "science" and are such good stewards of the earth. Dayyyuummm... I had no idea you guys were that easy. :biggrin:
 
I don't quite get how the "your side does it too", angle is supposed to represent a counterpoint. It's like arguing that Colorado can't be described as a mountainous state because Kansas has hills too.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
It wouldn't surprise me if there were groups and organizations doing the same for the other side. The article doesn't say where the money is going. The term "dark money" has recently been used in the context of funding political campaigns and I'd expect the money to go there.
Click to expand...
The idea that the funders of research prefer the results to come out a particular way, and that this causes large numbers of climatologists to phoney up the results, is based on nothing more than plausibility arguments, but as soon as the possibility of financial influence is brought up on the other side, suddenly people want to see proof.
 
azblackbird said:
Ahhhh... now I get it. Big oil is okay as long as they can pacify you with the right message, and can show you how they accept the "science" and are such good stewards of the earth. Dayyyuummm... I had no idea you guys were that easy. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
At short while ago, you wanted me to put my money where my mouth is. Now you're criticizing me for it. :rofl:
 
Palmpilot said:
At short while ago, you wanted me to put my money where my mouth is. Now you're criticizing me for it.
Click to expand...
Help me out here. What's that word they use when somebody rails against a product or service, but they themselves continue to use that very same product or service that they're so vehemently railing against? It's on the tip of my tongue, I just can't think of it right now. :dunno:
 
This thread is almost as repetitive as, well, Climate Change arguments.

Good Day and good luck.

Cheers
 
Palmpilot said:
The idea that the funders of research prefer the results to come out a particular way, and that this causes large numbers of climatologists to phoney up the results, is based on nothing more than plausibility arguments, but as soon as the possibility of financial influence is brought up on the other side, suddenly people want to see proof.
Click to expand...
it really doesn't matter who funds the research. As I stated earlier, most (all?) reputable journals require disclosure of funding and other conflicts of interest. The journal authors still need to list methods, why they are doing the research, why other research is incorrect, and why their research is correct. Also, neither side can change physical laws no matter how much money they spend. The laws of thermodynamics and other physical laws still hold. Or if one prefers, there are rules in place by a referee who doesn't play favorites and can't be bought off. That's why I don't think there can be much "phoney up" of the results.
 
Cooter said:
I don't quite get how the "your side does it too", angle is supposed to represent a counterpoint. It's like arguing that Colorado can't be described as a mountainous state because Kansas has hills too.
Click to expand...

If Kansans argued that people were only saying Colorado was a mountainous state because they were being paid to say that, some might think it fair to examine who was paying some of those Kansans.
 
X3 Skier said:
This thread is almost as repetitive as, well, Climate Change arguments.

Good Day and good luck.

Cheers
Click to expand...
I resisted getting dragged into this thread for a long time, but I finally succumbed! :eek:
 
Palmpilot said:
If Kansans argued that people were only saying Colorado was a mountainous state because they were being paid to say that, some might think it fair to examine who was paying some of those Kansans.
Click to expand...

Not bad. I had to think about that for a minute.:)

But, to make your analogy work, neither side could have ever seen the mountains of Colorado before. It would be like studying the Geography east of the Mississippi and declaring that as the evidence of what lies west of the Mississippi.

I wonder how long we can keep these analogies going?:D
 
Palmpilot said:
If Kansans argued that people were only saying Colorado was a mountainous state because they were being paid to say that, some might think it fair to examine who was paying some of those Kansans.
Click to expand...
The Koch brothers have been paying me to say that.
 
I probably should stay out of this and so far I did but I'm dumb and I've gotta say it.

To you environmentalists, tree huggers, eco-whatevers, etc, etc let me explain to you why you get so much opposition. You see traditionally when pressed to act government has mostly handled environmental issues by either banning/restricting things or taxing things. What this means for most people, business owners, etc is that they'll be stuck with products they need which either they can't get at all, don't work as well as what they had, or cost a lot more than what they used to have. It means degrading your life in some way. Yeah yeah I know the consequences of heating earth are a lot worse than having to drive a crappy economy car but that's a hypothetical possibility for most not a reality... and even if it is a reality it's way in the future.

Well, so what? You might say. These are real problems with potentially huge consequences. People just have to suck it up. Well, you could accomplish a lot more without further poisoning attitudes towards these issues by changing tactics. Go light with the ban and tax stick and go heavy with the tax credit/grant/encouragement carrots. I have geothermal heating/cooling in my home- I got tax breaks, it saves me money every month, and it works just as well as any central air/conventional heating system. I've switched almost all of my lighting over to LED- again it works just as good, lasts longer, saves me money.

Give me some better batteries and more convenient charging stations and I might just buy an electric car. Build some nuclear plants- no CO2 emissions. Better yet invest in fusion generator research. Everyone likes better cheaper technology, everyone likes getting tax credits. You'll see so much less resistance going this route than making things painful for people. Sure, you won't get everything you want but isn't it better to at least get somewhere and end up with some cool new tech at the same time?
 
cowman said:
Well, you could accomplish a lot more without further poisoning attitudes towards these issues by changing tactics. Go light with the ban and tax stick and go heavy with the tax credit/grant/encouragement carrots.
Click to expand...

Would be fine if that was really the case, but the majority of opposition I've heard is against the carrots. Including from people on this thread.
 
deonb said:
Would be fine if that was really the case, but the majority of opposition I've heard is against the carrots. Including from people on this thread.
Click to expand...
I'm not against the carrots. It's those who don't want to share those carrots and only make them exclusive to themselves. Al Gore is a prime example. I tried to play his carbon tax game, and in so many words him and his cohorts let me know that I'd dilute their market and make their scam worthless. I was basically informed that those "carrots" were only reserved for them and a few select others who were connected.
 
It's not about being against the carrots as a matter of principle. It's about giving out carrots and having nothing to show for it - that's what tax payers are against. These are billions of dollars in carrots we tax payers are paying for just to have a lot of these companies go bankrupt (do a Google search on: failed solar power and see what comes up).

http://www.aei.org/publication/rene...permanent-jobs-which-is-11-5-million-per-job/

Mostly because of the Al Gore's of the world (with the help of scientists who get their funding mostly from government grants) claiming all kinds of bad things will happen - like the polar ice caps melting (which never happened) if we don't spend billions upon billions trying to fix something that likely can't be fixed by throwing money at the problem.

Even Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace of all people, reject the climate fear regarding C02 and rising temps.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10...-it-is-actually-the-reason-that-we-are-alive/

If the U.S. government has 26 billion to blow on green projects that never materialize, they certainly have enough money to buy me a 2017 Cirrus SR22T. Just mark off the expenditure as a "rounding error" - nobody would notice. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top